Search results

This study aims to provide insights into ecosystem builder futurists’ work and their orientations toward creating more connected communities of the future.

Anticipation of and relationship with the future are not straightforward. How we approach the future and our relationship with it has underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions (Poli, 2010, 2017). Forecasting (Makridakis et al., 2008), foresight (Bishop and Hines, 2012; Hines and Bishop, 2013; Popper, 2008), futures studies (Bell, 2009; Gidley, 2017) and anticipatory logics (Miller and Poli, 2010; Miller et al., 2017; Nadin, 2010; Poli, 2017) inform this research study of a select group of futurists’ relationships with the future. This research explores ecosystem builder futurists’ work and their orientations toward creating more connected communities of the future. A primary driver of this research aims to understand how futurists with emergentist understandings think about and work with their clients to better understand how to facilitate individual and community transformations through anticipatory future perspectives.

This qualitative study was designed to explore the why, where and how of the ecosystem builder futurists. The “why” question of their work focused on capacity building, disruption and community for evolving systems revealing an emergentist orientation to the future. The “where” question, focusing on where their passions and ideas for futures work came from, revealed a commitment to forge new territories and support communities through the change process. Finally, the “how” questions revealed using both/and methods of traditional and innovative approaches with a special focus on changing the hearts and minds of those who participated in their community change initiatives.

A total of 15 ecosystem futurists participated in this study. Their perspectives were strongly affiliated and aligned with ecosystem building and communities of the future ideas. The narrow focus, however, is important to represent this particular population of the futurists.

There is a great need for ecosystem futurists who can work with communities for social and community transformations. This paper introduces ecosystem builder futurists as a unique population of futurists with specific drivers for and perspectives of change.

Especially in post-normal, mid-pandemic times, there will be more opportunities and need for ecosystem builder futurists to engage groups of individuals in transformative and community building processes. This study focuses on ecosystem futurists and how they work toward fundamental, community change.

Futurists work across many areas and emerging fields. A search of futurist activities reveals some of these areas including Marketing, Team Building, Coaching, Strategic Planning, Partner Management, Marketing Strategy, Ecosystem Building and Sustainable Community Development, to name a few. The purpose of this study is to describe the perspectives and underlying drivers of a particular group of futurists who have been working in large and small communities, organizations, governments and with clients with an underlying focus on creating communities of the future.

Political economies evolve institutionally and technologically over time. This means that to understand evolutionary political economy one must understand the nature of the evolutionary process in its full complexity. From the time of Darwin and Spencer natural selection has been seen as the foundation of evolution. This view has remained even as views of how evolution operates more broadly have changed. An issue that some have viewed as an aspect of evolution that natural selection may not fully explain is that of emergence of higher order structures, with this aspect having been associated with the idea of emergence. In recent decades it has been argued that self-organization dynamics may explain such emergence, with this being argued to be constrained, if not overshadowed, by natural selection. Just as the balance between these aspects is debated within organic evolutionary theory, it also arises in the evolution of political economy, as between such examples of self-organizing emergence as the Mengerian analysis of the appearance of commodity money in primitive societies and the natural selection that operates in the competition between firms in markets.

The purpose of this paper is to develop queer futuring strategies that take into consideration adult learners’ needs in support of transformational and sustainable change for social justice and equity.

This paper develops the construct of queer futuring, which engages queer theory perspectives in a critical futures framework. Adult learning theory informs queer futuring strategies to support adults and inform education to sustain transformational changes for social justice and equity.

With social justice in mind, queer futuring opens spaces and supports opportunities for adults to engage in learning activities that address historical and layered forms of oppression. Building on learning needs of adults to create meaning and make a difference in the world around them, queer futuring strategies provide tools for activism, advocacy and building new relationships and ways of being-with.

The sustainability of our current system of growth and financial well-being has already been called into question, and the current pandemic provides tangible evidence of values for contribution, connection and concern for others, even in the midst of political strife and conspiracy theories. These shifting values and values conflict of society point to the questions of equity and narrative inclusivity, challenging and disrupting dominant paradigms and structures that have perpetuated power and authority “over” rather than social participation “with” and harmony. Queer futuring is just the beginning of a bigger conversation about transforming society.

Queering spaces from the perspective of queer futuring keeps the adult learner and queering processes in mind with an emphasis on affiliation and belonging, identity and resistance and politics and change.

The authors suggest queer futuring makes room for opening spaces of creativity and insight as traditional and reified rationality is problematized, further supporting development of emergentist relationships with the future as spaces of possibility and innovation.

Queer futuring connects ethical and pragmatic approaches to futuring for creating the kinds of futures needed to decolonize, delegitimize and disrupt hegemonic and categorical thinking and social structures. It builds on queer theory’s critical perspective, engaging critical futures strategies with adult learners at the forefront.

Considers that in ecosystem, landscape and global ecology, an energetics reading of ecological systems is an expression of a cybernetic, systemic and holistic approach. In ecosystem ecology, the Odumian paradigm emphasizes the concept of emergence, but it has not been accompanied by the creation of a method that fully respects the complexity of the objects studied. In landscape ecology, although the emergentist, multi‐level, triadic methodology of J.K. Feibleman and D.T. Campbell has gained acceptance, the importance of emergent properties is still undervalued. In global ecology, the Gaia hypothesis is an expression of an organicist metaphor, while the emergentist terminology used is incongruent with the underlying physicalist cybernetics. More generally, an analytico‐additional methodology and the reduction of the properties of ecosystems to the laws of physical chemistry render purely formal any assertion about the emergentist and holistic nature of the ecological systems studied.

Since its resurrection during the 1980s, comparative-historical sociology has been repeatedly critiqued on two fronts. Quantitative methodologists have argued that its “causal inferences” are unreliable due to its “small n.” And methodological individualists have argued its explanatory accounts are unacceptable because they do not specify “microfoundations.” But these critiques are built on faulty foundations, namely, a regularity theory of causation and a reductionist social ontology. In this article, I propose an alternative foundation derived from Critical Realism: a production theory of causation and an emergentist account of social structure.

This paper aims to respond to Budd's discussion of meaning, truth and information by exploring the ontological framework prescribed by critical realism. Budd's thesis that information must be defined within the context of meaning and truth is challenged and the ontological priority of information is argued.

Following a critique of Budd's conclusions, a “regional ontology” of information is discussed. The practical adequacy of this theory is demonstrated by applying it to information‐seeking and meaning‐making, as described by Dervin's Sense‐Making Methodology (SMM). Finally, a case study is provided to illustrate the re‐conceptualization and implications in future research applications.

Information is a “thing” of ontological significance and which possesses truth and meaning as properties. Information may present as uninforming, incomprehensible, deceptive, nonsensical or sensical, depending on how the properties truth and meaning are expressed.

The main implication arising from this paper is that a definition of information is provided which permits application to situations of conflict or dissonance concerning information use. Abductive reasoning facilitates application of SMM to historically produced documents.

The novelty of this paper lies in the analysis of information, truth and meaning according to a realist, emergentist ontology, and in the consequent application of Dervin's SMM to documents by abductive reasoning.

The purpose of this paper is to contrast actor-network theory (ANT) and critical realism (CR) as two contemporary approaches to critical accounting research and advance a critique centred on the neglect of social structures in the former perspective.

This is a conceptual paper based on a critical reading of ANT inspired by CR.

Although the author does not question the ability of ANT to be imbued with critical intent per se, the author is critical of its tendency to downplay the significance of pre-existing, social structures and the concomitant neglect of enduring and ubiquitous states of structural stability as an ontological possibility. This may lead to an overly optimistic view that naively valorises agency as a largely unfettered engine of emancipation. By contrast, CR offers a deeper and more nuanced ontological conception of how social structures constrain as well as enable emancipation. In contrast to the highly empiricist epistemology of ANT, it also provides an epistemological rationale for going beyond empirical descriptions of how social structures work to advance theoretically informed, explanatory critiques that are better suited for realising less easily observable opportunities for emancipation.

The paper advances the debate about how social structures should be examined in critical accounting research and the relative merits of doing so in advancing emancipatory projects.

The paper is an attempt to contrast ANT and CR as two distinct approaches to critical accounting research and thus extends the debate about what such research is and could be.

To those concerned with challenges and challengers to conventional wisdom, the entirely credible perception of ours as a planet in the midst of a deep environmental crisis offers fruitful grounds for analysis. Crises stimulate those who have, in the existence of the crisis, firm proof that the wisdom which girds the status quo is deficient and/or those who apply it are. This is particularly true when the crisis is perceived to be grave and dread‐laden. Skin cancer due to the depletion of the ozone layer is on the increase. Large, at times devastating, climate changes are loose upon the planet. Whether given quasi‐ scientific names like the “greenhouse effect” or lumped together in a melange of “acid rain”, “toxic waste” and “industrial cancers”, the result is the same. Rational citizens of the everyday‐person‐on‐the‐street sort feel threatened. The threat is given shape and substance by the mass media. The environmental crisis is a credible crisis. One need not list radical political activism as one's vocation to list the environmental crisis as one of one's fears as we enter the 1990's.

This paper aims to critically reflect on the growing systems orientation in marketing research and the approaches used to understand marketing systems. In response, the paper offers an integrative metatheory built on the ontic necessity and subsequently constitutive and causal efficacy of relations.

This conceptual paper is built on a logic of critique, identifying the generative absences that produce problems in the frameworks in use and attempting to rectify these problems by offering an alternative meta-theoretical structure. This paper draws from critical realism, systems thinking and relational sociology.

This paper advocates for an emergentist ontology for marketing systems built on the value of both substance and relation as co-principles of existence and the subsequent irreducible stratification derived from this. This position suggests the following propositions: the ontological premise of being is reliant on relations; the social world is constructed of stratified levels of organisation in which entities, their properties and powers emerge by virtue of these relations; these entities operate in complex and mutually modifying interrelations; stability and change is the result of this complex interplay of temporally/spatially stratified relations; and time and space are properties and potential powers of organisation.

This paper considers a number of inconsistencies in current approaches to the study of marketing systems arguing these arise based on the absence of a view of relations that supports an effective theory of emergence. In response, the paper develops a set of ontological presuppositions regarding the nature of marketing systems and a subsequent set of epistemic conditions as an integrative metatheoretical position, through which these systems are better understood and analysed. The paper argues that these improve our ability to theorise about the multi-dimensionality of these systems.

Many approaches to understanding organization change approach “the organization” as a relatively static entity. Punctuated equilibrium models have also become popular, but here too the notion of unfreeze–change–refreeze suggests change as an exception — a break with the more normal stability upon which organizational control is predicated (Taplikis, 2005). By contrast, Tsoukas and Chia (2002, p. 570) have argued that “Change must not be thought of as a property of organization. Rather, organization must be understood as an emergent property of change. Change is ontologically prior to organization — it is the condition of possibility for organization.” Intuitively we agree with their position. However, it raises some significant questions for practitioners, principal among them: If change is constitutive of the organization rather than something which managers can control, then to what extent can change be subject to strategic influence?